the-power-of-prolog VS BQN

Prolog is excellent for bikeshedding, in fact that might be its strongest axis. It starts with everything you get in a normal language such as naming things, indentation, functional purity vs side effects, where to break code into different files and builds on that with having your names try to make sense in declarative, relational, logical and imperative contexts, having your predicates (functions) usable in all modes - and then performant in all modes - having your code be deterministic, and then deterministic in all modes. Being 50 years old there are five decades of learning "idiomatic Prolog" ideas to choose from, and five decades of footguns pointing at your two feet; it has tabling, label(l)ing, SLD and SLG resolution to choose from. Built in constraint solvers are excellent at tempting you into thinking your problem will be well solved by the constraint solvers (it won't be, you idiot, why did you think that was a constraint problem?), two different kinds of arithmetic - one which works but is bad and one which mostly works on integers but clashes with the Prolog solver - and enough metaprogramming that you can build castles in the sky which are very hard to debug instead of real castles. But wait, there's more! Declarative context grammars let you add the fun of left-recursive parsing problems to all your tasks, while attributed variables allow the Prolog engine to break your code behind the scenes in new and interesting ways, plenty of special syntax not to be sneezed at (-->; [_|[]] {}\[]>>() \X^+() =.. #<==> atchoo (bless you)), a delightful deep-rooted schism between text as linked lists of character codes or text as linked lists of character atoms, and always the ISO-Standard-Sword of Damocles hanging over your head as you look at the vast array of slightly-incompatible implementations with no widely accepted CPython-like-dominant-default.

Somewhere hiding in there is a language with enough flexibility and metaprogramming to let your meat brain stretch as far as you want, enough cyborg attachments to augment you beyond plain human, enough spells and rituals to conjour tentacled seamonsters with excellent logic ability from the cold Atlantic deeps to intimidate your problem into submission.

Which you, dear programmer, can learn to wield up to the advanced level of a toddler in a machine shop in a mere couple of handfuls of long years! Expertise may take a few lifetimes longer - in the meantime have you noticed your code isn't pure, doesn't work in all modes, isn't performant in several modes, isn't using the preferred idiom style, is non-deterministic, can't be used to generate as well as test, falls into a left-recursive endless search after the first result, isn't compatible with other Prolog Systems, and your predicates are poorly named and you use the builtin database which is temptingly convenient but absolutely verboten? Plenty for you to be getting on with, back to the drawing boar...bikeshed with you.

And, cut! No, don't cut; OK, green cuts but not red cuts and I hope you aren't colourblind. Next up, coroutines, freeze, PEngines, and the second 90%.

Visit https://www.metalevel.at/prolog and marvel as a master deftly disecting problems, in the same way you marvel at Peter Norvig's Pytudes https://github.com/norvig/pytudes , and sob as the wonders turn to clay in your ordinary hands. Luckily it has a squeaky little brute force searcher, dutifully headbutting every wall as it explores all the corners of your problem on its eventual way to an answer, which you can always rely on. And with that it's almost like any other high level mostly-interpreted dynamic programming / scripting language.

There is also AI that isn't machine learning. One could use formal logic to state rules and facts about the world and infer things from that. This sounds attractive but the main issue is that you need to build and maintain all of this knowledge. Most oldschool AI falls into this category. There's also fun programming languages like Prolog that are deep into this school: https://www.metalevel.at/prolog

There's a nice book[1][2] about Prolog, with modern characteristics. Moreover, there are things like ProbLog[3] and DeepProbLog[4] that allow you to use probabilistic reasoning and power of machine learning. I am personally looking forward for Scryer Prolog[5] to achieve its goals.

[1] https://www.metalevel.at/prolog

[2] https://github.com/triska/the-power-of-prolog

[3] https://github.com/ML-KULeuven/problog

[4] https://github.com/ML-KULeuven/deepproblog

[5] https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog

I had the same troubles until I encountered Markus Triska's modern perspective on revitalizing Prolog: https://www.metalevel.at/prolog.

The Power of Prolog [0] is a fantastic blog/video series covering everything from basic syntax, theoretical basis, modern features and idiomatic constructs.

I highly recommend it if you want to get the gist of Prolog and its modern features.

If you want a tour of Prolog, you can watch the video with that name [1].

[0]: https://www.metalevel.at/prolog

[1]: https://youtu.be/8XUutFBbUrg

I've gone through The Art of Prolog, most of The Power of Prolog, and a good chunk of the P-99 problems, and I have to say I'm simultaneously fascinated by and sceptical of Prolog. For some problem domains, implicit search is a very desirable property, and I can definitely see Prolog shining in that case. There are also many desirable properties and possibilities that are often reiterated, but concrete examples of how they would work are often missing. It comes down to: how does "production Prolog" look? A talk on Strange Loop by Michael Hendricks on exactly that topic was really helpful (especially w.r.t. some useful tools and libraries: func and yall are really great, and I still need to check mavis), but it still leaves me wondering on a couple of things.

Pretty much every Prolog book is quite good, but if you have the money or a local library with a copy, I really like Programming in Prolog by Clocksin, or Art of Prolog by Stering and Shapiro. If you want to follow a web resource, the standard suggestion is Markus Triska's The Power of Prolog.

I recommend checking BQN at https://mlochbaum.github.io/BQN/ and the YouTube channel code_report by Conor Hoekstra (and also "Composition Intuition by Conor Hoekstra | Lambda Days 2023"). It is well documented.

I don't put a lot of stock in the "write-only" accusation. I think it's mostly used by those who don't know APL because, first, it's clever, and second, they can't read the code. However, if I remember I implemented something in J 10 years ago, I will definitely dig out the code because that's the fastest way by far for me to remember how it works.

This project specifically looks to be done in a flat array style similar to Co-dfns[0]. It's not a very common way to use APL. However, I've maintained an array-based compiler [1] for several years, and don't find that reading is a particular difficulty. Debugging is significantly easier than a scalar compiler, because the computation works on arrays drawn from the entire source code, and it's easy to inspect these and figure out what doesn't match expectations. I wrote most of [2] using a more traditional compiler architecture and it's easier to write and extend but feels about the same for reading and small tweaks. See also my review [3] of the denser compiler and precursor Co-dfns.

As for being read by others, short snippets are definitely fine. Taking some from the last week or so in the APL Farm, {⍵÷⍨+/|-/¯9 ¯11+.○?2⍵2⍴0} and {(⍸⍣¯1+\⎕IO,⍺)⊂[⎕IO]⍵} seemed to be easily understood. Forum links at [4]; the APL Orchard is viewable without signup and tends to have a lot of code discussion. There are APL codebases with many programmers, but they tend to be very verbose with long names. Something like the YAML parser here with no comments and single-letter names would be hard to get into. I can recognize, say, that c⌿¨⍨←(∨⍀∧∨⍀U⊖)∘(~⊢∊LF⍪WS⍨)¨c trims leading and trailing whitespace from each string in a few seconds, but in other places there are a lot of magic numbers so I get the "what" but not the "why". Eh, as I look over it things are starting to make sense, could probably get through this in an hour or so. But a lot of APLers don't have experience with the patterns used here.

[0] https://github.com/Co-dfns/Co-dfns

[1] https://github.com/mlochbaum/BQN/blob/master/src/c.bqn

[2] https://github.com/mlochbaum/Singeli/blob/master/singeli.bqn

[3] https://mlochbaum.github.io/BQN/implementation/codfns.html

[4] https://aplwiki.com/wiki/Chat_rooms_and_forums

Uiua is an interesting new language. Strongly influenced by APL and BQN, it's array-oriented and stack-based. To explore it briefly, I will walk through my solutions to this week's Perl weekly challenge (242).

https://mlochbaum.github.io/BQN/

Forth and Lisps tend to be fairly visual syntax free as well.

I'm just speculating though, looking for someone with experience to confirm or rebuke.

> Are there any other languages that use glyphs so heavily?

APL (the first, invented in the 1960s): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APL_(programming_language)

BQN (a modern APL, looks like an inspiration for Uiua though I don't know): https://mlochbaum.github.io/BQN/

Too many smaller esoteric languages to count.

There is no need to have a specific keyboard. The actual solution depends on what APL you're using, but the principle is the same. The various symbols are available on the regular keys, and you use some way to indicate that you want the APL symbol rather than the regular symbol.

Dyalog has two different IDE's the support this. Ride uses backquote by default, while the windows IDE uses control.

Kap uses backquote in all its interfaces. Here's what it looks like in the web version: https://kapdemo.dhsdevelopments.com/clientweb2/

Likewise, BQN does the same thing, but uses backslash: https://mlochbaum.github.io/BQN/

When using GNU APL there is an Emacs mode available (which I am the author of) that provides an input method.

So the long story short, you should be able to get going with any array language without getting any special keyboard.

Vouch for array programming, but also BQN. Modern, very good documentation, a bit less confusing than APL imo.

For anyone looking to get into array programming, I'd recommend https://mlochbaum.github.io/BQN/. I'm no expert but I had a lot of fun using it for Advent of Code last year. I found it to be a lot more sensible and modern feeling than J (the only other one I've tried).

There’s also at least BQN, which I suspect is the language used in those comments:

https://mlochbaum.github.io/BQN/